• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

paulw66   

Thinking about it more....... JT was in exactly the same position. The court said not guilty as couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. In this instance, the club backed him. 

Now it is a supporter, not a mutli million pound asset, the club throws hin under the bus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JaneB said:

I don't understand what civil standard of proof means.  Either this guy did racially abuse Raheem Sterling or he didn't.  Can't we see and hear all the evidence?  I'm not at all sticking up for him but the Police brought no charges but now he's been found 'guilty' anyway.  And didn't other 'independent' lip readers conclude he didn't use racist language? 

Civil standard is 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'; essentially it is what is most likely to have happened in a common-sense reading of the available information.

We have to take a view on whether or not we trust the club on this. I'm inclined to trust them; they've listed very clearly what steps they took and what evidence and testimony was offered to them. Personally, I think we have no place seeing or hearing the evidence; it is between the club and the banned party and we do not have a right to it unless either of them decides to share it with us.

No one has been found 'guilty'. More 'most likely to be guilty'.

2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Disappointed TBH. The club are acting to appease the pitch fork wielding masses, rather than applying actual justice IMO.

This ...

10 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

What proof have they got ?

Has there been a prosecution ?

You can ban whoever you like from your premises for whatever you like but the club are branding a bloke a racist who categorically denies using racist language , a bloke who if memory serves has already lost his job because of it .

I'm not condoning his behaviour at all but two wrongs don't make a right , he's been thrown to the wolves for something he denies doing with no formal chance of redress.

And once again the club has branded its own supporters as racist in a vain attempt to be seen as doing the right thing to an audience who'd largely prefer that Abramovich liquidated the entire club and we ceased to exist.

… and this … Very much disagreed, on a couple of points.

The club's actions are just about as removed from throwing to the wolves as they could be without completing abdicating any responsibility (a la Spurs or Liverpool). They said nothing during the police investigation, made no announcement of their own findings until an appeal had already been heard, and they are not releasing what one might imagine to be damning evidence and testimony.

I can't understand the idea that the club would do this for good PR. They won't get any from it, and I expect know this well by now given how little mainstream coverage some huge praise from charities and organisations in the know have given us. They have done this to do the right thing.

The world is not a giant criminal court. We all make decisions, form views and take actions based on a lesser burden of evidence all of the time, and no-one would expect us to do otherwise. Many of us will have painful first-hand experience of having crimes or suffering perpetrated against us and knowing who is responsible without having the high-bar of evidence needed to do anything about it.

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Looking forward to Chelsea - Spurs and the club staying silent on the "y*d army" and "Chelsea rent boy" chants from the away end. 

I do agree the club could be more vocal, even aggressive, about the conduct of opposition supporters and the and tacit endorsement of anti-Semitism and homophobia by the clubs that fail to do anything. But then those fans are the responsibility of those clubs, and in some ways going about our business properly while they fail to clean their on houses is the best kind of criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Ridiculous that he can be sanctioned by the club when he’s been cleared by the courts. This isn’t justice, this is throwing a beaten man to the wolves. We all know what the football fans are reading/following - it’s the papers and not what’s said in court. This man was cleared but sentenced regardless

Not replying to argue the toss about what either of us thinks the person in question said or did, but as with the last time this came up it is worth being clear this matter was never ever put before 'the courts' and that nobody was ever 'cleared' of anything given that being 'cleared' has no formal or recognised legal or criminal meaning.

I'm unfortunate enough to often have worked with the police and CPS. I think people who have been luckier than me overestimate what not bringing criminal charges means.

18 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Thinking about it more....... JT was in exactly the same position. The court said not guilty as couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. In this instance, the club backed him. 

Now it is a supporter, not a mutli million pound asset, the club throws hin under the bus. 

Possible hypocrisy there, yes. But not close to the same position; JT actually had to go to court for a start*, precisely because there was a decent weight (but not quite enough) of evidence against him.

(*My thinking on this is the opposite of what you suggest; the CPS make decisions not only on evidence but on likelihood of conviction and public interest. There was a 'public interest' in JT being charged and convicted that would no have existed for someone like the fan we are discussing. I never saw it as JT getting away with anything because of his status but rather this status being why he was targeted for something many others slip under the radar for.)

Edited by thevelourfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
7 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

I do agree the club could be more vocal, even aggressive, about the conduct of opposition supporters and the and tacit endorsement of anti-Semitism and homophobia by the clubs that fail to do anything. But then those fans are the responsibility of those clubs, and in some ways going about our business properly while they fail to clean their on houses is the best kind of criticism.

Yes and no IMO. When they are at SB (our remit) singing things that are not "ok" then the club could and should issue a statement condemming it. 

You either care about this stuff, or you don't. To condem the home fans, and ignore the away support is a shallow stance to take IMO. Does the UK government / police not arrest foreginers for breaking the law in this country? No, of course not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

Possible hypocrisy there, yes. But not close to the same position; JT actually had to go to court for a start*, precisely because there was a decent weight (but not quite enough) of evidence against him.

 

That makes it worse. In the JT case, there was enough evidence to take it to court, and still the club backed him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

That makes it worse. In the JT case, there was enough evidence to take it to court, and still the club backed him. 

Not the view I had at the time, but I'm inclined to agree with you now. I wonder how the club would respond if that happened now. 

Still, that was (terrifyingly!) not too far off a decade ago. If that was mishandled, any such mishandling would not be an excuse for lack of action now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I'm unfortunate enough to often have worked with the police and CPS. I think people who have been luckier than me overestimate what not bringing criminal charges means.

Half of America thinks it means "not exonerated and therefore guilty.

7 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

That makes it worse. In the JT case, there was enough evidence to take it to court, and still the club backed him. 

No.  In the JT case the CPS decided it was in the public interest to prosecute JT.  In this case the CPS decided it was not.
But frankly if there was a 5% chance that JT would be found guilty, the CPS would have prosecuted - both to set an example and to pre-empt claims of not treating the rich equally.
To prosecute in this case the CPS would want to be 90% sure of a guilty verdict, otherwise it is an unnecessary cost and potential minefield for the CPS.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
5 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

No.  In the JT case the CPS decided it was in the public interest to prosecute JT.  In this case the CPS decided it was not.
But frankly if there was a 5% chance that JT would be found guilty, the CPS would have prosecuted - both to set an example and to pre-empt claims of not treating the rich equally.
To prosecute in this case the CPS would want to be 90% sure of a guilty verdict, otherwise it is an unnecessary cost and potential minefield for the CPS.

I am talking about the club's stance. 

JT was accused, and not enough evidence was found to prosecute.

Cheslea fan accused, and not enough evidence was found to prosecute.

One was backed by the club (the multi million pound assest and club captain) and the other (a very dispensible fan) was not backed, and was banned.

The club stance across the two issues is conflicted. 

Edited by paulw66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

I am talking about the club's stance. 

JT was accused, and not enough evidence was found to prosecute.

Cheslea fan accused, and not enough evidence was found to prosecute.

One was backed by the club (the multi million pound assest and club captain) and the other (a very dispensible fan) was not backed, and was banned.

The club stance across the two issues is conflicted. 

No.  At first sight the CPS stance across the two issues is conflicted, but that can be explained. 

The club think that there is more evidence against the fan than there was against JT.  We saw all the evidence against JT.  We have not seen the full evidence against the fan - and as TVF points out we should not do.

It is perfectly reasonable for the club to believe that there was more evidence against the fan, and they would be perfectly reasonable to take other events or non-public comments from nearby fans and stewards into account.
 

As TVF also points out, having charges dropped or sent to the court by the CPS is NOT always an indication of how strong the case is.  Rather it is also dependent on how much a trial is in the public interest (read public, Police, CPS, government interests and costs). 
There was little to be gained by prosecuting this fan.  There was much to be lost by not prosecuting JT.
JT was going to be prosecuted even though he was only 5% likely to be found guilty.  This fan was not going to be prosecuted unless he admitted guilt and the whole thing could be done cheaply in 20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

… and this … Very much disagreed, on a couple of points.

 

I generally think of you as the brains of the operation here , a calm thoughtful voice in the madhouse if you like but I'm afraid I disagree.

Raheem Stirling was originally complaining about double standards of the treatment of black players in the media compared to that of white players.

This event was used by the media to deflect their responsibility onto some big mouthed oaf at the football .

The man in point has already lost his job , been interviewed in the media and said he was appalled at his own behaviour on reflection , and categorically denied using racist language.

The club have formally and seemingly without proof branded him a liar and a racist in the worlds media  , to my mind they have completely thrown him to the wolves and I believe they have done it for their own vanity.

I find that despicable .

I would like to think that if I was accused of something I hadn't done it wouldn't been splashed all over the media to make someone else feel good about themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now